Integration of information distribution systems

ABSTRACT

An integration component assists in the integration of information distribution systems (IDSs). The integration component may help to identify the scope of the systems that are to be integrated using a multi-level top-down approach. The multi-level top-down approach may include five levels: a system software level, a business process level, a business rule level, an interface function level, and a data level. A fault detection component may then check the identified systems to identify potential faults. This check can be performed by representing the business rules as a Transition-Directed-Graph (TDG) and then processing the TDG using generic depth-first search (DFS)-based algorithms.

RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 based on U.S.Provisional Application No. 60/488,798 filed Jul. 22, 2003, thedisclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

A. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to operations support systems(OSSs), and more particularly to switched service software systems.

B. Description of Related Art

In today's computerized world, companies may use sophisticated softwaresystems to coordinate and manage many aspects of their business. Thesoftware systems are often highly customized to the particular needs ofthe company and can be a significant asset. When two competitivecompanies within the same business sector merge into one bigger company,reusing existing resources in each company becomes a top prioritysystems integration task. In particular, it is often desirable tointegrate the software systems of the two companies into a singlesystem. Such an integration can be difficult to perform, but onceimplemented, can provide large potential cost savings and efficiencyimprovements.

As an example of the above, consider the merger of twotelecommunications companies. One of the valuable reusable resources forthe newly consolidated company is the software systems from eachcompany. These systematically reusable software systems keep the companybusiness going, supports customer services, and create revenue. For thenew merged company, consolidating software systems with the samefunctionality, such as provisioning systems and inventory systems, canprovide significant benefits.

Integrating software systems, although potentially beneficial, alsoentails risk. The risk is because the software systems may havedifferent data representations, business processes, business rules, andsystem implementations, as well as different hardware platforms thatsupport these software systems. These factors make efficientlyintegrating these software systems without introducing errors or faultsa difficult proposition.

Thus, there is a need in the art for techniques for integratinginformation distribution systems that reduce the cost and/or riskinvolved in such integrations.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

One aspect of the invention is directed to a method of integratingsoftware systems. The method includes identifying a scope of theintegration based on a multi-level top-down approach and identifyingfaults in business rules that define software in the scope of theintegration by applying generic depth-first search (DFS)-basedtechniques to the business rules. The method further includes modifyingthe business rules based on the identified faults.

A second aspect of the invention is directed to a system for integratinginformation distribution systems. The system includes means forassisting a user to identify a scope of the integration using amulti-level top-down approach, the identified scope including a set ofbusiness processes that are to be integrated and a set of business rulesthat define the business processes. The system further includes a faultdetection component configured to identify faults in the business rulesby applying generic depth-first search based techniques to the businessrules.

Yet another aspect of the invention is directed to a method ofintegrating information distribution systems of merging entities. Themethod includes identifying top-level software systems that are to beintegrated, identifying business processes in the top-level softwaresystems, and comparing the identified business processes to determinebusiness processes that are related enough to be candidates forintegration. The method further includes identifying business rules thatdefine the business processes and identifying faults in the businessrules by applying generic depth-first search based techniques to thebusiness rules.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute apart of this specification, illustrate an embodiment of the inventionand, together with the description, explain the invention. In thedrawings,

FIG. 1 is a diagram of an exemplary computing device that may be used toimplement aspects of the invention;

FIG. 2 is a diagram conceptually illustrating a five-level top-downintegration framework that may be used consistent with aspects of theinvention for integrating information distribution systems;

FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating exemplary relationships between thecomponent levels shown in FIG. 2;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating operations for integrating twoinformation distribution systems;

FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary set of identifiedsoftware systems;

FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary set of rules representedusing a Transition-Directed-Graph (TDG) representation;

FIG. 7 is a diagram graphically illustrating six exemplary categories ofchained-inference faults; and

FIG. 8 is a block diagram graphically illustrating an operation shown inFIG. 4.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following detailed description of the invention refers to theaccompanying drawings. The detailed description does not limit theinvention.

As described herein, an integration component assists in the integrationof information distribution systems (IDSs). The integration componentmay help to identify the scope of the systems that are to be integrated,such as the software systems, business processes, business rules,interface functions, and data that are to be integrated. The integrationcomponent may then check the identified systems to identify potentialfaults in the integrated systems. This check can be performed byrepresenting the business rules as a Transition-Directed-Graph (TDG) andthen processing the TDG using generic depth-first search (DFS)-basedalgorithms.

System Overview

Many of the techniques described herein are implemented on or withassistance of a computing device. FIG. 1 is a diagram of an exemplarycomputing device 100. Computing device 100 may include a bus 110, aprocessor 120, a main memory 130, a read only memory (ROM) 140, astorage device 150, input device(s) 160, one or more an output devices170, and a communication interface 180. Bus 110 may include a set ofconductors that permit communication among the components of computingdevice 100.

Processor 120 may include a conventional processor or microprocessorthat interprets and executes instructions. Main memory 130 may include arandom access memory (RAM) or another type of dynamic storage devicethat stores information and instructions for execution by processor 120.ROM 140 may include a conventional ROM device or another type of staticstorage device that stores static information and instructions for useby processor 120. Storage device 150 may include a magnetic and/oroptical recording medium and its corresponding drive.

Input device(s) 160 may include conventional mechanisms that permit auser to input information to computing device 100, such as a keyboard, amouse, a pen, voice recognition and/or biometric mechanisms, etc. Outputdevices 170 may include conventional mechanisms that output informationto the user, including a display, a printer, a speaker, etc.Communication interface 180 may include any transceiver-like mechanismthat enables computing device 100 to communicate with other devicesand/or systems.

As will be described in detail below, computing device 100, consistentwith principles of the invention, may implement an integration component105. Integration component 105 may be stored in a computer-readablemedium, such as memory 130. A computer-readable medium may be defined asa physical or logical memory device and/or carrier wave.

The software instructions defining integration component 105 may be readinto memory 130 from another computer-readable medium, such as datastorage device 150, or from another device via communication interface180. The software instructions contained in memory 130 may causeprocessor 120 to perform processes that will be described later.Alternatively, hardwired circuitry or other logic may be used in placeof or in combination with software instructions to implement processesconsistent with the present invention. Thus, implementations consistentwith the principles of the invention are not limited to any specificcombination of hardware circuitry and software.

Integration Framework

FIG. 2 is a diagram conceptually illustrating a five-level top-downintegration framework that may be used consistent with aspects of theinvention for integrating information distribution systems (IDSs). Ingeneral, software requirements for all processes that are to beintegrated within the five levels are identified, to thus define thescope of the integration. This identification may be performed manuallyby an operator and/or with the assistance of integration component 105.

Software system level 201 may include the high-level software systemsused by the two integrating parties. For example, telecommunicationcompanies may have separate provisioning and billing software systems.These two systems would be identified as a separate system at thesoftware system level.

Business process level 202 includes business processes, where a businessprocess may be defined as a sequence of transitions, driven by events ordata, which can be viewed as a set of chain-inference rules. In otherwords, a business process can be a collection of related, structuredactivities—a chain of events—that produce a specific business result.The result may be the creation of a product or service, or anintermediate component which contributes to the creation and delivery ofproducts or services, either directly or indirectly. Examples ofbusiness processes may include a certain sales process, invoicingprocess, or marketing process.

Business processes in business process level 202 may each be defined bya set of business rules at business rule level 203. A set of businessrules are employed to implement a business process. In other words, abusiness rule may be defined as a transition in a business process. Oncea business process is identified, the business rules associated with theprocess can be identified and defined.

Interface function level 204 includes the interface functions thatdefine communications between business rules. More particularly, thecommunications between two business rules may be defined as beingperformed through one or more interfaces. The interfaces includefunctions designed to effectuate the interfaces. The functions areemployed to ensure a defined business rule is not broken during theinformation distribution. Once business rules are defined, functions canbe documented into the integration requirements.

Data level 205 defines the data used by levels 201-204. Data integrityrefers to the consistency of information stored within differentinformation distribution systems. Data transfer across IDS/systemboundaries should remain consistent in format and representation.

FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating exemplary relationships between thecomponent levels 201-205 in additional detail. System software 301 mayinclude one or more business processes 302. As mentioned, a businessprocess 302 can be defined as a sequence of transitions, where eachtransition may be represented by a business rule 303. Functions 304implement business rules 303. Functions 304 may communicate with otherfunctions through an interface 305. Functions 304 of business rules 303may operate on data 306.

System Operation

FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating operations for integrating two IDSs.The integration process may include identifying the different logicallevels 201-205 in the two IDSs.

The operations for integrating IDSs may begin by identifying top levelsoftware systems (i.e., software systems level 201) that should beintegrated (act 401). For two merging Telecommunications companies, forexample, each may have software systems dedicated to communicationprovisioning. These provisioning systems may handle all aspectsassociated with identifying and activating communication services tocustomers.

As an illustrative example, FIG. 5 is a block diagram that depicts anexemplary set of software systems that may have been identified in act401. As shown, the identified software systems include a provisioningsystem 501 from company “A,” a provisioning system 502 from company “B,”and a long distance system 503 from company “A.” Provisioning systems501 and 502 are likely to be identified as performing many commonfunctions. Systems 501 and 502 may thus become targets for integration.

Systems targeted for integration may then be analyzed at the businessprocess level (act 402). One or more business processes may beidentified in the software systems. A number of business processes areshown in FIG. 5 for provisioning systems 501 and 502. The businessprocesses for provisioning system 501 are labeled as business processes511-1 thru 511-N (collectively referred to as business processes 511).The business processes for provisioning system 502 are labeled asbusiness processes 512-1 thru 512-M (collectively referred to asbusiness processes 512). Various ones of the business processes, such asbusiness process 511-1 and business process 512-2, may then beidentified as processes that should be integrated (act 403). Businessprocesses that are to be integrated may be, for example, businessprocesses that perform substantially the same or similar functions orprocesses that are somehow related and for which benefits could beobtained by integrating the processes. Thus, in general, businessprocesses 511 and 512 are “compared” to locate related pairs (orpotentially more than two) of business processes. For example, businessprocesses 511-1 and 512-2 may both be processes relating to setting-up avirtual private network (VPN) connection. These two processes would bedetermined to be targeted for integration.

As previously mentioned, business processes may be implemented throughsets of business rules. Business rules are defined for each of theidentified business processes (act 404). Business rules may operate ondata (e.g., customer information) exchanged through interfaces. The dataand interfaces used to exchange data represent the data level 205 andinterface function level 204 of an IDS. Accordingly, for each businessrule, the type of data used by the rule and the interfaces through whichthe business rules interact may also be identified (act 405).

For each set of business processes that are to be integrated, it may begenerally desirable that the integrated set of rules associated with theprocesses are consistent and do not interact to produce errors or otherundesirable results. Potential faults in the business rules may, thus,be identified (act 406). In an exemplary aspect of the invention, anintegrated set of rules may be represented using a Transition-DirectedGraph (TDG) representation which may be further processed by integrationcomponent 105 using generic depth-first search (DFS)-based algorithms toidentify potential faults in the rules (act 406). Based on theidentified faults, the rules may be modified (act 407). The potentialfaults that are identified for the business rules may be based oninconsistency, contradiction, circularity, subsumption, redundancy, andincompleteness. To assist in the understanding of the invention, each ofthese faults will be described below. Additionally, the TDGrepresentation and the DFS-based algorithms are generally known in theart, and are described in, for example, Y. Hwang, “Detecting Faults inChained-Inference Rules in Information Distribution Systems,” doctoraldissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., Dept. ComputerScience, 1997.

FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary set of rules representedusing a TDG representation. The set of rules for the TDG may represent abusiness process.

In FIG. 6, business rules are represented by lines and vertices. Morespecifically, the results of interface functions 304 are represented byvertices, such as vertex 601. Lines, such as lines 602, representparticular functions 304. A business rule may be initiated based on theoccurrence of a predicate, labeled as predicates A, B, C, and D in FIG.6.

Using the TDG representation, two or more predicates in the Right HandSide (RHS) of one business rule are allowed. For instance, as depictedin FIG. 6, predicate A is involved in three business rules—r1, r2, andr4.

Based on the TDG representation, DFS-based algorithms can be used toidentify six categories of chained-inference faults. FIG. 7 is a diagramgraphically illustrating the six categories of chained-interferencefaults. The six categories are inconsistency 701, circularity 702,subsumption 703, contradiction 704, redundancy 705, and incompleteness706 and 707. Each category depicts a pattern that describes a fault.Once one of fault patterns 701-707 is found, the computationalcomplexity to locate the rules involved in the pattern is on the orderof O(n), where n is the number of vertices in a given TDG.

Pattern 701, inconsistency, can be defined as a path that exists with astarting vertex that is conflicting with an ending vertex. In pattern701, starting vertex 710 conflicts with ending vertex 711, as vertex 710represents a predicate A and ending vertex 711 represents a predicate“not A.” Pattern 702, circularity, can be defined as a path with anidentical starting and ending vertex (i.e., a cycle). In pattern 702,starting vertex 720 is also the ending vertex. Pattern 705, redundancy,can be defined as a path in which a starting vertex reaches the sameending vertex along two or more paths. In pattern 705, starting vertex750 and ending vertex 751 can both be reached by different paths 752 and753. Pattern 704, contradiction, can be defined as a pattern thatincludes two paths with an identical starting vertex and contradictingending vertices. In pattern 704, two paths begin from starting vertex740 (predicate A) that end in contradicting predicates (predicate D andnot D) at vertices 741 and 742. Pattern 703, subsumption, can be definedas a type of redundancy pattern 705, in which one of the redundant pathsis a single rule. In pattern 703, paths 731 and 732 both lead to theending vertex. Path 732 is a single rule. Patterns 706 and 707illustrate incompleteness faults. An incompleteness fault can be definedas an internal vertex that cannot be reached from any one of the inputvertices, or an internal vertex that cannot reach any of the outputvertices.

The DFS-based techniques can be used to detect faults at both local andglobal levels at the same time. Possible criteria used to detect faultsat both local and global levels will now be generally described below.

Inconsistency. During application of the DFS-based algorithm, if onevertex is active and is revisited, then pattern 701 may be considered tobe found. A vertex is considered to be active if it has been visited andthere exists one or more adjacent vertices that have not yet beenvisited.

Contradiction. During application of the DFS-based algorithm, acontradiction pattern is found when there exists an exclusive pair ofvertices, such as vertices 741 and 742, and one distinguished vertex,such as vertex 740, and a path exists from vertex 740 to vertex 741 anda second path exists from vertex 740 to vertex 742.

Circularity. During application of the DFS-based algorithm, acontradiction pattern is found when a vertex is active and is revisited.

Redundancy. During application of the DFS-based algorithm, redundancypattern 705 is found when a vertex is inactive and is revisited. Avertex is inactive if it has been visited and all its adjacent verticeshave also been visited.

Subsumption. Subsumption pattern 703 is a specific type of redundancyfault in which one of the paths is a single rule.

Incompleteness. After application of the DFS-based algorithm,incompleteness patterns 706 or 707 are found based on an unvisitedvertex. Also, during application of the DFS-based algorithm,incompleteness patterns 706 or 707 are found if there exists anexclusive pair of vertices such that one vertex in the pair can reachthe other, or vice versa.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram graphically illustrating the operations of act406 (FIG. 4). As shown, a set of integrated rules 801 is input to faultdetection component 802. Based on the TDG representation and DFS-basedalgorithms, fault detection component 802 generates a list of possiblefaults in rules 801. Based on the identified faults, defected rules maybe modified and re-input to fault detection component 802 (act 407). Inthis manner, rules that define business processes (which in-turn definesoftware systems) that are to be integrated can be efficiently checkedand modified to remove faults before the rules are physicallyimplemented in software code.

CONCLUSION

Techniques were described above that can be used to integrate two ormore Information Distribution Systems. Within these techniques, afive-level based approach is used to identify each component that is tobe integrated. The five-level approach may first start with identifyingrelated software systems that are to be integrated. Sets of businessprocesses within the identified software systems may then beestablished. Based on the established business processes, sets ofbusiness rules can be identified. The interface functions and data thatare associated with the business rules are used to ensure the businessrules are not broken and that data integrity between each integratedsystem is held.

The TDG can be used to represent each component to be integrated duringthe system integration. Based on the TDG representation, six differenttypes of faults within the integrated business rules can be verifiedusing DFS-based algorithms. Thus, using the TDG and DFS-basedalgorithms, the business rules and interfaces of the business processpairs can be automatically analyzed to find faults (conflicts). Detectedfaults can be resolved manually or potentially using automatedtechniques.

It will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that aspects ofthe invention, as described above, may be implemented in many differentforms of software, firmware, and hardware in the implementationsillustrated in the figures. The actual software code or specializedcontrol hardware used to implement aspects consistent with the presentinvention is not limiting of the present invention. Thus, the operationand behavior of the aspects were described without reference to thespecific software code—it being understood that a person of ordinaryskill in the art would be able to design software and control hardwareto implement the aspects based on the description herein.

The foregoing description of preferred embodiments of the presentinvention provides illustration and description, but is not intended tobe exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed.Modifications and variations are possible in light of the aboveteachings or may be acquired from practice of the invention. Forexample, although many of the operations described above were describedin a particular order, many of the operations are amenable to beingperformed simultaneously or in different orders to still achieve thesame or equivalent results.

No element, act, or instruction used in the description of the presentapplication should be construed as critical or essential to theinvention unless explicitly described as such. Also, as used herein, thearticle “a” is intended to include one or more items. Where only oneitem is intended, the term “one” or similar language is used.

1. A method of integrating software systems comprising: identifying ascope of the integration based on a multi-level top-down approach;identifying faults in business rules that define software in the scopeof the integration by applying generic depth-first search (DFS)-basedtechniques to the business rules; and modifying the business rules basedon the identified faults.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein identifyingfaults in the business rules includes: representing the business rulesusing a transition-directed graph (TDG) representation.
 3. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the multi-level top-down approach includes: a firstlevel that includes high-level software systems.
 4. The method of claim3, wherein the multi-level top-down approach further includes: a secondlevel that includes business processes of the high-level softwaresystems.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the multi-level top-downapproach further includes: a third level that includes business rulesthat are defined as transitions in the business processes; a fourthlevel that includes interface functions that define communicationsbetween the business rules; and a fifth level that includes data used bythe business rules and the interface functions.
 6. The method of claim4, further including: comparing the business processes to locate similarbusiness processes that are to be integrated.
 7. The method of claim 1,wherein identifying the scope of the integration is performed onsoftware systems from multiple merging entities.
 8. The method of claim1, wherein the identified faults include faults of at least one ofinconsistency, contradiction, circularity, subsumption, redundancy, andincompleteness.
 9. A system for integrating information distributionsystems comprising: means for assisting a user to identify a scope ofthe integration using a multi-level top-down approach, the identifiedscope including a set of business processes that are to be integratedand a set of business rules that define the business processes; and afault detection component configured to identify faults in the businessrules by applying generic depth-first search (DFS)-based techniques tothe business rules.
 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the faultdetection component is further configured to represent the businessrules using a transition-directed graph (TDG) representation.
 11. Thesystem of claim 9, wherein the multi-level top-down approach includes: afirst level that includes high-level software systems.
 12. The system ofclaim 11, wherein the multi-level top-down approach further includes: asecond level that includes the business processes, which define thehigh-level software systems.
 13. The system of claim 12, wherein themulti-level top-down approach further includes: a third level thatincludes the business rules defined as transitions in the businessprocesses; a fourth level that includes interface functions that definecommunications between the business rules; and a fifth level thatincludes data used by the business rules and the interface functions.14. The system of claim 12, wherein the means for assisting compares thebusiness processes to locate similar business processes that are to beintegrated.
 15. The system of claim 9, wherein the scope of theintegration is defined for software systems from multiple mergingentities.
 16. The system of claim 9, wherein the identified faultsinclude faults of at least one of inconsistency, contradiction,circularity, subsumption, redundancy, and incompleteness.
 17. A methodof integrating information distribution systems of merging entities, themethod comprising: identifying top-level software systems that are to beintegrated; identifying business processes in the top-level softwaresystems; comparing the identified business processes to determinebusiness processes that are related enough to be candidates forintegration; identifying business rules that define the businessprocesses; and identifying faults in the business rules by applyinggeneric depth-first search (DFS)-based techniques to the business rules.18. The method of claim 17, further comprising: modifying the businessrules based on the identified faults.
 19. The method of claim 17,wherein comparing the identified business processes includes findingpairs of business processes that perform substantially the same orsimilar functions.
 20. The method of claim 17, wherein the identifiedfaults include faults of at least one of inconsistency, contradiction,circularity, subsumption, redundancy, and incompleteness.
 21. The methodof claim 17, wherein identifying faults in the business rules furtherincludes: representing the business rules using a transition-directedgraph (TDG) representation.
 22. A computer-readable medium containinginstructions for execution by one or more processors, thecomputer-readable medium including: instructions for assisting a user toidentify a scope of an integration of information distribution systemsby using a multi-level top-down approach, the identified scope includinga set of business processes that are to be integrated and a set ofbusiness rules that define the business processes; and instructions foridentifying faults in the business rules by applying generic depth-firstsearch (DFS)-based techniques to the business rules.
 23. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the instruction foridentifying faults represent the business rules using atransition-directed graph (TDG) representation.
 24. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the multi-level top-downapproach includes: a first level that includes high-level softwaresystems.
 25. The computer-readable medium of claim 24, wherein themulti-level top-down approach includes: a second level that includes thebusiness processes, which define the high-level software systems. 26.The computer-readable medium of claim 25, wherein the multi-leveltop-down approach includes: a third level that includes the businessrules defined as transitions in the business processes; a fourth levelthat includes interface functions that define communications between thebusiness rules; and a fifth level that includes data used by thebusiness rules and the interface functions.
 27. The computer-readablemedium of claim 22, wherein the scope of the integration is defined forinformation distribution systems from multiple merging entities.
 28. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the identified faultsinclude faults of at least one of inconsistency, contradiction,circularity, subsumption, and incompleteness.